I assume the task_lock() is there to protect current->comm. If so, itis unneeded - we're protecting against prctl(PR_SET_NAME), andPR_SET_NAME only operates on current, and we know this task isn'tcurrently running PR_SET_NAME.

If there's a way for another task to alter this task's ->comm then we_do_ need locking. But there isn't a way, I hope.